Nephilim, Demons, Supernatural Stuff

[Taahanni]

Full disclosure there are some weird implications of this understanding of the early population on Earth, one of which being the "Serpent Seed" teaching, which has Satan being the actual father of human beings. Pretty distorted stuff, which has bred a lot of confusion.

I don’t intend to derail this thread, but is this the same teaching that states the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not disobedience but bestiality with the serpent? I just recently heard for the first time of this interpretation of the Fall account. I can make a new thread about it to avoid distracting from this one (I was actually planning to), I just did not even know there was an official term for this teaching.

 

[MyCrows]

I don’t intend to derail this thread, but is this the same teaching that states the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not disobedience but bestiality with the serpent? I just recently heard for the first time of this interpretation of the Fall account. I can make a new thread about it to avoid distracting from this one (I was actually planning to), I just did not even know there was an official term for this teaching.

Yep, that's it more or less.

 

[Phil D.]

Not to mention Himmler's interest in Wewelsburg Castle.

There's some pretty interesting and plausible stuff out there (mostly in Russian, and some from more than a decade ago) regarding Putin and some of of his ilk having an infatuation with the occult, including making pilgrimages to various neo-Eurasianisim "holy" locations in a bid to empower their brand of imperialism.

 

[Theoretical]

I don’t intend to derail this thread, but is this the same teaching that states the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not disobedience but bestiality with the serpent? I just recently heard for the first time of this interpretation of the Fall account. I can make a new thread about it to avoid distracting from this one (I was actually planning to), I just did not even know there was an official term for this teaching.

That's legitimately nasty and insane. Wow. I've heard crazy stuff before, but that's a new one.

 

[Phil D.]

I don’t intend to derail this thread, but is this the same teaching that states the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not disobedience but bestiality with the serpent? I just recently heard for the first time of this interpretation of the Fall account. I can make a new thread about it to avoid distracting from this one (I was actually planning to), I just did not even know there was an official term for this teaching.

There have been a few PB threads on the topic of Serpent's Seed. I posted something here.

 

[Taahanni]

There have been a few PB threads on the topic of Serpent's Seed. I posted something here.

Thank you. I did not want to start a thread on a topic that has already been discussed in detail. I simply did not know what to search for beforehand. I will peruse this thread and see if it answers all my questions.

 

[Ploutos]

There have been a few PB threads on the topic of Serpent's Seed. I posted something here.

The linked thread references Eve falling into sin with Saran, but not Adam. @Taahanni - correct me if I am wrong, but your friend believes Adam and Eve both sinned in a perverted way with Satan, right? If so, that is somewhat different from the linked thread.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This story is very intriguing to me, and this is the story I was talking about with my friend that originally brought up that discussion on the nephilim. If you're not familiar with it, and you want to learn more, search Las Vegas aliens in backyard. It has really turned out to be a pretty credible thing, with multiple sources confirming something very mysterious that happened. But anyway, I'll post a video below where the witness talks about demonic things going on at his house after seeing the creatures. It just makes me wonder if something like this could be what the Bible refers to as nephilim.

 

[RamistThomist]

This story is very intriguing to me, and this is the story I was talking about with my friend that originally brought up that discussion on the nephilim. If you're not familiar with it, and you want to learn more, search Las Vegas aliens in backyard. It has really turned out to be a pretty credible thing, with multiple sources confirming something very mysterious that happened. But anyway, I'll post a video below where the witness talks about demonic things going on at his house after seeing the creatures. It just makes me wonder if something like this could be what the Bible refers to as nephilim.

I agree that there is something "dark" and supernatural going on, but I wouldn't call it "nephilim." By all accounts, it seems like David's mighty men killed off the last Nephilim.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The twilight zone visits PuritanBoard!

 

[MW]

What is more, it is also true that even though the Old Testament does not elsewhere use “sons of God” to describe God’s people, the idea is not entirely foreign to the passage. In Genesis 5:1-3, image and sonship are intimately connected: Adam is made in God’s image and he passes that image on to his children through Seth. If Adam is thus, by virtue of bearing his image, God’s son (Luke 3:38), and Seth is explicitly made in the image of Adam (5:3), could not Seth and his line rightly be called “sons of God”?[11]

Thankyou for making this available ahead of time. I agree with the position taken on the sons of God. Luke's statement appears decisive to me. He is basing it off something, and that something is naturally understood to be the reference in Gen. 6 as tied to the preceding narrative.

Arguing from the image of God seems problematic to me. Is not Cain and his posterity made in the image of God?

I do not see where sonship appears in Gen. 5:3. There is only "begetting" -- a point that is regrettably obscured in some translations.

 

[iainduguid]

I do not see where sonship appears in Gen. 5:3. There is only "begetting" -- a point that is regrettably obscured in some translations.

Hi Matthew,
Could you clarify your point here? "Son" may not be explicit in Gen 5:3 (Adam was 130 years old when he fathered [a son] in his own likeness) but all the English translations supply it, because in English the verb "to father, beget" typically requires an object. One might compare Gen 5:28, where the object is explicit in Hebrew: "Lamech was 182 years old when he fathered a son". But perhaps I am missing something.

 

[No Other Name]

Luke's statement appears decisive to me. He is basing it off something, and that something is naturally understood to be the reference in Gen. 6 as tied to the preceding narrative.

I echo the request for clarification re: Gen. 5:3 and also the portion I quoted above. What Luke reference do you have in mind? Dr. Duguid had no Luke reference. The only reference he had to the Gospels was Matthew where Jesus taught that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.

So I am curious what statement in Luke seems decisive and is based off something by being linked to Gen. 6 via the preceding narrative.

Thank you and God bless

 

[davejonescue]

I echo the request for clarification re: Gen. 5:3 and also the portion I quoted above. What Luke reference do you have in mind? Dr. Duguid had no Luke reference. The only reference he had to the Gospels was Matthew where Jesus taught that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.

So I am curious what statement in Luke seems decisive and is based off something by being linked to Gen. 6 via the preceding narrative.

Thank you and God bless

To be fair, the verse that says they neither marry are or given in marriage, says the "angels in heaven." Mark 12:25, Matt. 22:30. I dont believe "fallen angels" would encompass that domain.

 

[MarrowMan]

I echo the request for clarification re: Gen. 5:3 and also the portion I quoted above. What Luke reference do you have in mind? Dr. Duguid had no Luke reference. The only reference he had to the Gospels was Matthew where Jesus taught that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.

So I am curious what statement in Luke seems decisive and is based off something by being linked to Gen. 6 via the preceding narrative.

Thank you and God bless

Luke 3:38. It's in Dr. Duguid's post. There, Adam is called the Son of God.

ETA: I should add, called the Son of God at the end of Luke's genealogy which contains a significant portion of the genealogy of Genesis 5.

 

[No Other Name]

The twilight zone visits PuritanBoard!

Meh, more like X-Files around here than Twilight Zone hahahaha.

Maybe you do not mean to be dismissive. Maybe this is your way of exhorting everyone not to be distracted?

If so, I agree and point well taken!

Otherwise, it seems unnecessarily scoffing in light of evidence viewed in many areas. There are in fact dark supernatural elements not authored by God and one way these elements could be used by the enemy is - as you seem to warn - distract us from Christ and our missions work in our lives, jobs, etc.

Again I agree and amen, brother!

I just point out that yet another way the enemy could use this to distract is to dismiss outright that certain things could not be possible in a naturalistic way and be surprised when a believer's presupposed naturalistic explanations may one day be shown to be misguided if not mistaken.

Re: the procreation theory, allow me to quote you:

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Psa 127:3KJV)

Further, He has His hand in our very formation in the womb. (Psalm 139:13, 14, 15, 16.) We humans are the glory of God, now that His Son has indwelt our nature and we are united with Him. The devil wants the glory that is only God's – the creation and giving of life.

1 John 3:1,2,3:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.​

While I am not one of them myself, faithful ministers who subscribe to the procreating fallen angel theory would say nothing but Amen! ... and wonder what your point is? They do not view the hybrid-offspring as human and bearing the covenant obligation and promises God has with mankind.

So by implication you are saying yet again in a more indirect way that

To enter into physical union with humans sexually and produce offspring would require them to have human nature. Human nature is not given to them

To which I repeat how do you know that fallen angels cannot produce life? No one on the other side proposes such life is human with all covenant obligations and promises ascribed. Just that they are life.

Your presupposition seems to limit angels taking physical form and being able to do everything inherently physically possible to the assumed body. This seems to be presumptive.

Now, I do not propose therefore that the opposite of that is therefore true: it means they in fact did take on all possible physical aspects and they did procreate - this too is presumptive.

Rather I see it as a case where more data is required - and there is more data for these positions (I am looking into ziggurats currently. Don't worry, just for fun I assure you), but the full presentation of data is probably only available in eternity. I am ok with that fact personally.

To be fair, the verse that says they neither marry are or given in marriage, says the "angels in heaven." Mark 12:25, Matt. 22:30. I dont believe "fallen angels" would encompass that domain.

I agree with this. My post was only re: what was in Professor Duguid's post.

Luke 3:38. It's in Dr. Duguid's post. There, Adam is called the Son of God.

ETA: I should add, called the Son of God at the end of Luke's genealogy which contains a significant portion of the genealogy of Genesis 5.

Thanks; I missed this on my perusal looking for it.

 

[No Other Name]

The twilight zone visits PuritanBoard!

You jest, but I would love for a Biblical Twilight Zone using fanciful scenarios to illustrate the spiritual longings within each and every single man, woman and child:

1) Longings that are being nourished and grown by faith in Christ for those who have saving faith or

2) a worse case where the spiritual longings become a nightmarish tormentor by objects that promise to bring fulfillment only to leave the afflicted worse off than they were before because they tried to circumvent the Gospel of Christ to fill their wants/needs.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Some problems with the notion that demons copulated with women:

1. It would require that when the demons "materialize" (whatever that means), that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and are thus able to fertilize a human egg with their sperm. That would presumably mean that God created them that way, so that they could procreate. Since we know that the angels in heaven, who are living according to God's design for angels, don't procreate (either with human women or with "female" angels, which we have no reason to think exist), we can be sure that God wouldn't have created them with that way.

2. If we grant that God did not design angels to procreate, but still think they did procreate, then we would have to conceive that angels have the ability to fundamentally alter the nature of created things, which is to say that they have creative power. That's a blasphemous and heretical notion.

3. As regards the offspring, how is it that they are fallen? Are they children of Adam, and thus his sin is imputed to them according to the covenant of works? Or is the sin of their demon father imputed to them, and on what grounds? Did God make a covenant with angels and their posterity? If they are represented by Adam in the covenant of works, they must be redeemable; but what would it mean for a devil-human hybrid to be redeemed? Of course, if they aren't fallen in Adam, and the sin of their demon father is not imputed to them, they must be born innocent and unfallen, since in the case of both angels and men fallenness is a punishment for sin. But we read nothing of unfallen angel-men, the offspring of devils and sinful women.

 

[No Other Name]

I feel like I have to preface this by saying yet again I do not believe the fallen procreated physically with human females but still:

That would presumably mean that God created them that way, so that they could procreate.

Not really; it could hypothetically be possible that the fallen are permitted to take physical form (just like holy angels in heaven are allowed) but they are permitted to use the bodies for evil - as they would be as a means and vehicle for God's judgment on mankind. Since they are not in fact "angels in heaven" this does not violate Christ's teaching on the face of it. As to the biological mechanics of it being mysterious, I agree wholeheartedly.

If we grant that God did not design angels to procreate, but still think they did procreate, then we would have to conceive that angels have the ability to fundamentally alter the nature of created things, which is to say that they have creative power. That's a blasphemous and heretical notion.

Kind of already answered so that anyone that holds that view are not even unintentionally being blasphemous or heretical. Again, I agree they have some exegetical issues, but they would be innocent of your last sentence here.

Or is the sin of their demon father imputed to them, and on what grounds? Did God make a covenant with angels and their posterity? If they are represented by Adam in the covenant of works, they must be redeemable; but what would it mean for a devil-human hybrid to be redeemed?

They would argue they are not represented by Adam in the covenant of works and not redeemable apart from any other non-soulish creatures that happen to survive to the fulfillment of the last things when all shall be made new and righted by the second coming of Christ. But they also maintain that none of these survived past the Flood and David and his mighty men. I am just saying how they would categorize the human-like creatures.

And they would maintain that there was nothing "created" as these were all created things that were simply made ugly out of pre-existing pre-created material so that nothing was created and there was no exercise of created power outside of God himself.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some problems with the notion that demons copulated with women:

1. It would require that when the demons "materialize" (whatever that means), that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and are thus able to fertilize a human egg with their sperm. That would presumably mean that God created them that way, so that they could procreate. Since we know that the angels in heaven, who are living according to God's design for angels, don't procreate (either with human women or with "female" angels, which we have no reason to think exist), we can be sure that God wouldn't have created them with that way.

2. If we grant that God did not design angels to procreate, but still think they did procreate, then we would have to conceive that angels have the ability to fundamentally alter the nature of created things, which is to say that they have creative power. That's a blasphemous and heretical notion.

This by Tyler is sound and Biblical. To try to gainsay it will reveal much.
________

Brad,

It's well-known that "Twilight Zone" is full of occult material. And those "fanciful scenarios to illustrate the spiritual longings" of humans – why bring in distinct darkness and satanic deceptions and mix it with Biblical truths?

Although I must say that this is to be expected given the increasing use of sorcery / pharmakeia – especially marijuana and other psychedelic entheogens legalized and available, and used increasingly by professing believers. We have opened the barrier between the demonic and human realms, and the influence and presence of the former is entering even the churches.

Openness to the occult is a great red flag.

 

[No Other Name]

Brad,

It's well-known that "Twilight Zone" is full of occult material. And those "fanciful scenarios to illustrate the spiritual longings" of humans – why bring in distinct darkness and satanic deceptions and mix it with Biblical truths?

Presumption again. Sometimes I wish some posters would ask me what I mean instead of assuming, sigh.

To answer this charge against me, I will start a new thread soon since it is decidedly off-topic here.

 

[lynnie]

I don’t intend to derail this thread, but is this the same teaching that states the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not disobedience but bestiality with the serpent? I just recently heard for the first time of this interpretation of the Fall account. I can make a new thread about it to avoid distracting from this one (I was actually planning to), I just did not even know there was an official term for this teaching.

Just to clarify for your brain clutter, lol .....Serpents seed teaching, and the first sin teaching, are distinct teachings. The former, as far as I know from encountering them, all think that Satanic race became the Khazarian Jews who became Eastern European Jews and now the majority of Israeli Jews; European whites came from Ephraim and Manasseh. They don't believe any of those Jews can be saved, and would say the messianic ones are wolves in sheep's clothing to fool the church into Zionism, and that sort of thing. It is very dark and evil if you get to know these people.

I used to know people who were into the other first sin interpretation, which is different and does not assume offspring. I am not saying I believe it, nor do I disbelieve it. I've heard the biblical argument and it holds up if you are not literal. (Because I am literal 6 days, young earth, etc, I don't easily move into what Adam and Eve did as symbolic. But I see it as a valid argument if you reference other scripture.)

In Song of Solomon, the bride went into his garden and sat under his apple tree and his fruit was sweet to her taste. The euphemism for sex as eating desirable fruit from the tree is crystal clear, and there are other similar references but I don't want to take time to look up the doctrine now.

In a common sense way though, look at Adam and Eve immediately covering their privates, and look at the way Satan seems to attack sexual purity so much in this fallen world. Some lower animals have male and female organs on the same body, and this teaching assumes both Adam and Eve entered into a sexual experience with Satan, who was a very real created physical being. When I look at the despicable perversion going on today, why is it hard to comprehend that the first sin was sexual perversion? I find this teaching to be sensible, except for the whole discussion of literal versus symbolic in Genesis, and since I am not into the Biologos evolution camp, it then feels inconsistent for me to go symbolic. However, on some gut level I believe it and it seems more biblical than eating one ripe piece of fruit , if we look at scriptural references for sexual experience.

By the way, it isn't worth arguing with people either way in my opinion. They tend to hold vehemently to their position.

 

[No Other Name]

To try to gainsay it will reveal much.

In my reply, did I "gainsay" it? Or am I presenting the other side in order to get his argument sharper than it currently is while also allowing for charity to earnest brothers who hold to the other side? Especially considering I ultimately agree with his position re: procreating fallen angels? I am curious as to your thoughts on that.

 

[davejonescue]

Some problems with the notion that demons copulated with women:

1. It would require that when the demons "materialize" (whatever that means), that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and are thus able to fertilize a human egg with their sperm. That would presumably mean that God created them that way, so that they could procreate. Since we know that the angels in heaven, who are living according to God's design for angels, don't procreate (either with human women or with "female" angels, which we have no reason to think exist), we can be sure that God wouldn't have created them with that way.

2. If we grant that God did not design angels to procreate, but still think they did procreate, then we would have to conceive that angels have the ability to fundamentally alter the nature of created things, which is to say that they have creative power. That's a blasphemous and heretical notion.

3. As regards the offspring, how is it that they are fallen? Are they children of Adam, and thus his sin is imputed to them according to the covenant of works? Or is the sin of their demon father imputed to them, and on what grounds? Did God make a covenant with angels and their posterity? If they are represented by Adam in the covenant of works, they must be redeemable; but what would it mean for a devil-human hybrid to be redeemed? Of course, if they aren't fallen in Adam, and the sin of their demon father is not imputed to them, they must be born innocent and unfallen, since in the case of both angels and men fallenness is a punishment for sin. But we read nothing of unfallen angel-men, the offspring of devils and sinful women.

Not giving in marriage doesnt necessarily mean that they do not have the capability, since us (man) who have the capability, will also be like them in terms of not procreating. Instead of non-capacity, we may think of the nullification of pro-creation in terms of morality; that is, in glorification, we no longer look at each other as potential mates, but as family members, collectively the spouse of one husband?

 

[lynnie]

Some problems with the notion that demons copulated with women:

1. It would require that when the demons "materialize" (whatever that means), that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and are thus able to fertilize a human egg with their sperm. That would presumably mean that God created them that way, so that they could procreate. Since we know that the angels in heaven, who are living according to God's design for angels, don't procreate (either with human women or with "female" angels, which we have no reason to think exist), we can be sure that God wouldn't have created them with that way.

2. If we grant that God did not design angels to procreate, but still think they did procreate, then we would have to conceive that angels have the ability to fundamentally alter the nature of created things, which is to say that they have creative power. That's a blasphemous and heretical notion.

3. As regards the offspring, how is it that they are fallen? Are they children of Adam, and thus his sin is imputed to them according to the covenant of works? Or is the sin of their demon father imputed to them, and on what grounds? Did God make a covenant with angels and their posterity? If they are represented by Adam in the covenant of works, they must be redeemable; but what would it mean for a devil-human hybrid to be redeemed? Of course, if they aren't fallen in Adam, and the sin of their demon father is not imputed to them, they must be born innocent and unfallen, since in the case of both angels and men fallenness is a punishment for sin. But we read nothing of unfallen angel-men, the offspring of devils and sinful women.

Tyler- right now research is going on using stem cells from one dad, and sperm from the other, to make a baby for Sodomites. It looks like it will be successful. What they are doing in labs is jaw dropping. They already make human-pig, or mouse, or rabbit embryos and claim it is for research, and the hybrids are destroyed very young in the embryo stage. I don't believe them.

Angels are created but invisible. They are not supernatural. Only God is supernatural. Angels are natural. We just can't see them unless they change form somehow. We don't know what the Gen 6 angels could do.

Many Christians are deluded by evolutionary theory to believe in a slow progression of high technology to modern times. Pre Noah was rather primitive in their understanding.

There are volumes of archaeology proving this false. Ooparts- out of place items- in coal seams and buried deep reveal that the ancients had electricity, batteries, space ships and rockets, and even nuclear bombs according to the most ancient manuscripts. The Christians I know who study this say it was carried over by Noah and lasted a few hundred years. Even Babel and the attempt to keep in touch and not be scattered from each other was a communications tower of some sort. At Babel, God finally took down the high tech and while it lingered in ancient priests who could make lights with batteries and maybe a few other things, until modern times it was lost.

Anyway, according to Enoch, which book Jude quotes, so don't dismiss it entirely, the fallen angels taught mankind various things that led to the pre Noah violence. Look how far we have come in 500 years with technology...is it hard to think that ancients living many hundreds of years did not go farther than us now? And what could fallen angels do to get that female egg dividing? We don't know, but I think it is coming back to our society. Did you know there is a computer now with 16 primitive brains running it? Read this and blow your mind: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...es-less-power-consumption-than-a-digital-chip

And yes, I read elsewhere the brains are from aborted fetuses.

Maybe an asteroid or global grid down would be a good thing. The transhumanism agenda is beyond horrible.

Anyway, we don't know for sure what life was like in Genesis 6. But evidence leads to the angel- human hybrid theory in my opinion. It is possible now for two species hybrids, so why not then, if the angels could manifest physically?

 

[RamistThomist]

If holding to the procreation theory is blasphemous and heretical, then Justin Martyr is a blasphemer

 

[Phil D.]

Just to clarify for your brain clutter, lol .....Serpents seed teaching, and the first sin teaching, are distinct teachings. The former, as far as I know from encountering them, all think that Satanic race became the Khazarian Jews who became Eastern European Jews and now the majority of Israeli Jews; European whites came from Ephraim and Manasseh. They don't believe any of those Jews can be saved, and would say the messianic ones are wolves in sheep's clothing to fool the church into Zionism, and that sort of thing. It is very dark and evil if you get to know these people.

There are definitely many, some whom I know, that hold to Serpent's Seed and do not necessarily have racist views.

In a common sense way though, look at Adam and Eve immediately covering their privates, and look at the way Satan seems to attack sexual purity so much in this fallen world. Some lower animals have male and female organs on the same body, and this teaching assumes both Adam and Eve entered into a sexual experience with Satan, who was a very real created physical being. When I look at the despicable perversion going on today, why is it hard to comprehend that the first sin was sexual perversion? I find this teaching to be sensible, except for the whole discussion of literal versus symbolic in Genesis, and since I am not into the Biologos evolution camp, it then feels inconsistent for me to go symbolic. However, on some gut level I believe it and it seems more biblical than eating one ripe piece of fruit , if we look at scriptural references for sexual experience.

One immediate problem with this view is that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply in Gen. 1:28, and they were obviously physically equipped to do so. This doesn't align well with their having been first introduced to sex by Satan in Gen. 3:6.

 

[MyCrows]

 

[Taahanni]

The linked thread references Eve falling into sin with Saran, but not Adam. @Taahanni - correct me if I am wrong, but your friend believes Adam and Eve both sinned in a perverted way with Satan, right? If so, that is somewhat different from the linked thread.

That is correct.

Just to clarify for your brain clutter, lol .....Serpents seed teaching, and the first sin teaching, are distinct teachings. The former, as far as I know from encountering them, all think that Satanic race became the Khazarian Jews who became Eastern European Jews and now the majority of Israeli Jews; European whites came from Ephraim and Manasseh. They don't believe any of those Jews can be saved, and would say the messianic ones are wolves in sheep's clothing to fool the church into Zionism, and that sort of thing. It is very dark and evil if you get to know these people.

I used to know people who were into the other first sin interpretation, which is different and does not assume offspring. I am not saying I believe it, nor do I disbelieve it. I've heard the biblical argument and it holds up if you are not literal. (Because I am literal 6 days, young earth, etc, I don't easily move into what Adam and Eve did as symbolic. But I see it as a valid argument if you reference other scripture.)

In Song of Solomon, the bride went into his garden and sat under his apple tree and his fruit was sweet to her taste. The euphemism for sex as eating desirable fruit from the tree is crystal clear, and there are other similar references but I don't want to take time to look up the doctrine now.

In a common sense way though, look at Adam and Eve immediately covering their privates, and look at the way Satan seems to attack sexual purity so much in this fallen world. Some lower animals have male and female organs on the same body, and this teaching assumes both Adam and Eve entered into a sexual experience with Satan, who was a very real created physical being. When I look at the despicable perversion going on today, why is it hard to comprehend that the first sin was sexual perversion? I find this teaching to be sensible, except for the whole discussion of literal versus symbolic in Genesis, and since I am not into the Biologos evolution camp, it then feels inconsistent for me to go symbolic. However, on some gut level I believe it and it seems more biblical than eating one ripe piece of fruit , if we look at scriptural references for sexual experience.

Thank you for this clarification. What you said in here is almost exactly what my friend stated. I'm still perusing old threads before starting a new one on this topic--it is something on which I would like more information/feedback.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Tyler- right now research is going on using stem cells from one dad, and sperm from the other, to make a baby for Sodomites. It looks like it will be successful. What they are doing in labs is jaw dropping. They already make human-pig, or mouse, or rabbit embryos and claim it is for research, and the hybrids are destroyed very young in the embryo stage. I don't believe them.

I understand that through in-vitro fertilization a number of non-viable fetal or embryonic hybrids have been conceived. That's very different from what they are doing with the Sodomites, who are both human. It's also very different from theories regarding nephilim.

Angels are created but invisible. They are not supernatural. Only God is supernatural. Angels are natural. We just can't see them unless they change form somehow. We don't know what the Gen 6 angels could do.

Angels are spirits (Heb 1:14). They are immaterial.

Many Christians are deluded by evolutionary theory to believe in a slow progression of high technology to modern times. Pre Noah was rather primitive in their understanding.

There are volumes of archaeology proving this false. Ooparts- out of place items- in coal seams and buried deep reveal that the ancients had electricity, batteries, space ships and rockets, and even nuclear bombs according to the most ancient manuscripts. The Christians I know who study this say it was carried over by Noah and lasted a few hundred years. Even Babel and the attempt to keep in touch and not be scattered from each other was a communications tower of some sort. At Babel, God finally took down the high tech and while it lingered in ancient priests who could make lights with batteries and maybe a few other things, until modern times it was lost.

I'm sorry, but this is a gigantic exaggeration. It amounts to old wives' fables (1 Tim 4:7).

The Lord has told us about pre-flood technology. You can read about it in Genesis 4:20-22. It consists of raising cattle, tent-making/dwelling, musical instruments, and brass and iron work.

Anyway, according to Enoch, which book Jude quotes, so don't dismiss it entirely, the fallen angels taught mankind various things that led to the pre Noah violence.

Paul warns us against giving heed to Jewish fables (Titus 1:14).

If holding to the procreation theory is blasphemous and heretical, then Justin Martyr is a blasphemer

What I said is blasphemous and heretical is the notion that angels have creative power--power to change their created nature from what God made it to be, and/or power to change other creative natures.